People v Bongcarawan

Case Title and Citation

People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Basher Bongcarawan y Macarambon, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 143944, July 11, 2002
Supreme Court - En Banc
Ponente: Justice Puno

---

Facts

• On March 11–13, 1999, a voyage on the interisland passenger ship M/V Super Ferry 5 from Manila to Iligan City culminated in a suspected theft incident involving jewelry belonging to Lorena Canoy.
• Canoy identified Basher Bongcarawan as a suspect; he was located in cabin no. 106 and subjected to a bodily search. No jewelry was found.
• A Samsonite suitcase belonging to the accused was opened, revealing a brown bag and eight small plastic packs containing a white crystalline substance suspected to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”).
• The ship’s security personnel notified the captain and called the Philippine Coast Guard. The items were seized and later turned over to PAOCTF; NBI testing confirmed 399.3266 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• The accused testified that he was asked by Alican “Alex” Macapudi to deliver the suitcase to Macapudi’s brother in Iligan City; he claimed ownership of various luggage but not the Samsonite suitcase, which he claimed was not his and had a secret combination lock.
• The defense argued the search was conducted by private vessel security personnel and thus not subject to constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

---

Issues

1. Was the search and seizure of the Samsonite suitcase by vessel security personnel a violation of the accused’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures?
2. Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the prohibited drug with knowledge and without lawful authorization?

---

Ruling

1. No — The search and seizure by vessel security personnel did not violate the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, because the search was conducted by private security actions rather than by governmental authorities; the protection applies to the State and its agents.
2. Yes — The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the drug with knowledge; possession is established by showing (a) possession of the drug, (b) lack of lawful authorization, and (c) knowledge/animus possidendi, with the burden shifting to the accused to explain absence of knowledge when ownership is not clear.

---

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

• The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a fundamental protection applicable to government action; private individuals or private security personnel are not government agents, so the search by vessel security personnel does not trigger suppression under the Constitution.
• The accused’s assertion that he did not own the suitcase or know its contents was rejected due to credibility findings and lack of corroborating evidence; ownership of the things in possession is presumed, and mere denial does not overturn the presumption.
• In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) possession of the drug, (2) lack of lawful authorization, and (3) knowledge/animus possidendi. Possession of the contraband constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge, shifting the burden to the accused to show lack of knowledge or ownership; here, the trial court’s credibility determinations supported the conclusion that the accused knowingly possessed the drug.
• The Court cited and applied established authorities on possession, knowledge, and the effect of private searches, including United States v. Tan Misa for the knowledge requirement, and held that denial of ownership without credible corroboration is insufficient to defeat the State’s case.
• The defense’s attempted substitution of ownership to a supposed third party (Alican Macapudi) was not substantiated by evidence, and mere denial cannot overcome the prima facie showing of possession and knowledge.

---

Doctrine / Legal Principle

• Private searches by non-government actors are not within the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; the state’s protection applies to government actions or agents.
• Possession of a regulated drug creates a prima facie case of knowledge/animus possidendi, placing the burden on the accused to negate knowledge with credible evidence.
• Ownership of property found in possession is presumed; overcoming this presumption requires clear and convincing evidence.

---

Disposition

• The RTC decision convicting the accused-appellant Basher Bongcarawan of violation of Section 16, Article III, RA 6425, as amended, is AFFIRMED.
• The accused is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and fined P500,000.00, with no subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; the period of preventive detention credited toward the sentence; the 399.3266 grams of shabu ordered disposed of by the NBI.

---

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

• None. The decision is by the Supreme Court with the majority opinion, with Justices Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio concurring in the result.

---

Significance / Notes

• Clarifies that searches conducted by private vessel security personnel do not invoke constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Reinforces the evidentiary principle that possession of illegal drugs can be established by demonstrating knowledge/animus possidendi, with ownership considerations examined but not determinative in the absence of credible supporting evidence.
• Affirms the applicability of established criminal possession standards to large quantities of illegal drugs and the procedural burden-shifting framework when ownership is disputed but not credibly supported.